In article <39CC7A92.2E02ED88 at seebelow.org>,
Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> wrote:
>Very interesting. Some of the extreme cases they considered made me
>think that licenses like the GPL and MPL which have "forcing functions"
>(as the article calls them)--wherein the user is obligated to _do_
>certain things--are completely untenable.
>>Only licenses which require that the user "not do" certain things seem
>viable in the long run.
The GPL requires that the user not do certain things: specifically,
that they not redistribute the software except under certain
conditions, such as providing source code and a copy of the license to
those to whom they redistribute the software.
It does not require that anyone provide source code to anyone else, or
that anyone license their software in a particular way; it merely says
that, if they do not do so, they are not allowed to copy and distribute
the software licensed to them under the GPL.
--
<kragen at pobox.com> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves
possess.
-- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"]